I draw a distinction in the article between laws that seek to regulate lies in campaigns (likely a 1st Amendment violation) and lies about the where/how/when of voting (much more likely to survive First Amendment challenge)https://twitter.com/michaelmorley11/status/1022528140265103360 …
-
-
1/ Your Slate piece offers the example of someone wearing a "Please I.D. Me" button at a polling place in a state w/o a voter ID law as a "misleading" communication and something a state could punish.
-
2/ I don't see the pin as misleading. Perhaps it's a bit ambiguous, but it could reasonably be read as calling for the imposition of ID requirements or expressing a preference that such requirements existed. (FWIW, I don't think SCOTUS expressly addressed whether it's misleading)
-
I think the specific point is uncertain, and in the Montana piece I discuss the difference between laws barring false election-related speech (likely constitutional) with laws barring misleading speech (much more problematic). Obama's bill, when a Senator, tried to bar both
-
It's been awhile since I've read your piece; I remember thinking it was insightful and look forward to revisiting it. I think the Roberts Court may have gone even further in the pro-free-speech direction in the intervening years, but that may not affect your analysis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.